NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Wow. That's rediculous. I guess that means that 4 non-related people can't live in a house, even just to split the rent in Black Jack. Remind me to never move there.

:rolleyes: :mad:

Because homeless unwed parents are alot better than just unwed parents.

Wait...you have to get permission from the government (an "Occupancy Permit") to be allowed to live with more than 2 friends?

Fucking hell. That's outrageous.

If they have children together, aren't they all related by blood? The mother is related to the children. The father is related the children. They may not be related directly to each other, but they are all related.

Of course, besides that little technical detail - the law is obviously full of it.

Authoritarianism shows its ugly head.

Wait...you have to get permission from the government (an "Occupancy Permit") to be allowed to live with more than 2 friends?

Fucking hell. That's outrageous.

How would you enforce it, anyway?

"OCCUPANCY POLICE!! FREEZE!"

"Uh..I... *drops bong* hey man, I don't live here, i'm just...visiting...yeah. You want the other guy that sleeps under the stairs."

Wait...you have to get permission from the government (an "Occupancy Permit") to be allowed to live with more than 2 friends?

Fucking hell. That's outrageous.


thats america

How would you enforce it, anyway?

"OCCUPANCY POLICE!! FREEZE!"

"Uh..I... *drops bong* hey man, I don't live here, i'm just...visiting...yeah. You want the other guy that sleeps under the stairs."

What happens if you get kicked out of your house, and your only friends in the city already live in a group of 3 and don't have a permit for a fourth person?

I actually can't get over the stupidity of this law.

Surely if you own the house, you should be able to decide who lives there?

Or what if four people buy it between themselves? One of them isn't allowed to live in their own property?

What happens if you get kicked out of your house, and your only friends in the city already live in a group of 3 and don't have a permit for a fourth person?

I actually can't get over the stupidity of this law.

Surely if you own the house, you should be able to decide who lives there?

Or what if four people buy it between themselves? One of them isn't allowed to live in their own property?

It might be a city-only law, though - it seems far too ridiculous to have a hope of standing as something that is universal across the USA.

But then again, America. *shrugs*

Stupid fucking religion creating laws.

Hopw many more stupid laws like this do we need to see to show that religion should stay out of the lawbooks

wtf?!?! occupancy permit?

So the United States of America is the land of the free eh?

Stupid fucking religion creating laws.

Hopw many more stupid laws like this do we need to see to show that religion should stay out of the lawbooks

I think a couple of televised witch burnings should do it for most people.

America, no... Mississippi, maybe.
I've lived in America for 28 years, and I've never had to get an occupancy permit for any of the places I've lived. Then again, I've always lived North of the Mason-Dixon line. Maybe things are different down South?

I think a couple of televised witch burnings should do it for most people.

Knowing us it might bolster church-state support :p

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Doesn't this go against Child Welfare laws? Evicting people who have children, based on something that is not in any way detrimental to the welfare of the children? I think it would be a very good idea for all the people to join together, get a very good lawyer, and start a prosecution against the City Council - for causing unnecessary suffering of children or whatever (having the THREAT of eviction could cause suffering to the kids... I seriously doubt they wanna end up in Sociel Services (or Child Services) care.

Knowing us it might bolster church-state support :p

:p True, but if they ever invent smell-o-vision, it might be a different story.

America, no... Mississippi, maybe.
I've lived in America for 28 years, and I've never had to get an occupancy permit for any of the places I've lived. Then again, I've always lived North of the Mason-Dixon line. Maybe things are different down South?

Youve learned to hate the South but still havent learned the difference between Missouri and Mississippi though. Missouri wasnt part of the CSA.
Good venom though. Keep up the good work

:p True, but if they ever invent smell-o-vision, it might be a different story.
http://homedir-b.libsyn.com/podcasts/worldofsound/images/Smellovision.jpg

I cant believe that this dosnt go against a federal law.

:p True, but if they ever invent smell-o-vision, it might be a different story.


I still think the fing-longer is a more useful invention

Youve learned to hate the South but still havent learned the difference between Missouri and Mississippi though. Missouri wasnt part of the CSA.
Good venom though. Keep up the good work

Also, one hick town is not representitive of Missouri. I can't see anything that stupid passing in Kansas City!

The only way I can see this working is if they didn't buy the house, but rather are living in council-owned property. If they raised the money to buy it (by mortage, if necessary) then it's theirs, and the council has no freekin' right to restrict their residence based on marital status.

I cant believe that this dosnt go against a federal law.

I think it probably does.

i THINK IT PROBABLY DOES. jUST GONNA CHANGE A wORD DOCUMENT AND LOOK IT UP.Caps lock is a bitch, no?

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Isn't this a violation of fair housing laws?

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Hehe.

Pony up and get married dude.

Although I do think it's an overstepping of Governmental authority for them to have to have an occupancy permit to live in a home.

This totally has to violate their right to privacy. I'm thinking this law gets overturned by a state or federal court on those grounds.

I just remembered this (law and injustice links):

http://www.coolinnit.blogspot.com/

And Similization, I was in a rush. Couldn't be arsed changing what I wrote to Sentence Case.

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.
Oh for Pete's sake, all they have to do is get married! GET MARRIED!!!!

Oh for Pete's sake, all they have to do is get married! GET MARRIED!!!!

Yes, because we should force people into marriage. That makes the institution much better. They're much less likely to have a messy divorce if someone pushes them into it.

Yes, because we should force people into marriage. That makes the institution much better. They're much less likely to have a messy divorce if someone pushes them into it.
No kidding. Seems to me--based solely on the article--that the family is doing just fine as they are without having the magic slip of paper.

Yes, because we should force people into marriage. That makes the institution much better. They're much less likely to have a messy divorce if someone pushes them into it.
Oh, you're worried about divorce? The father isn't married to the mother, and the mother has three kids. Hmmm, that might as well be divorce.

Sorry, this is a violation of fair housing laws. These people need to hire a lawyer.

Oh, you're worried about divorce? The father isn't married to the mother, and the mother has three kids. Hmmm, that might as well be divorce.

It's none of your business, or this town's, why they aren't married. Marriage is optional, and as far as I'm concerned is a pretty outdated concept. People will get together and live together, and they will also leave each other if it's not working out, married or not. Why bring all that legal and financial shit into it unless you really, really want to?

Oh, you're worried about divorce? The father isn't married to the mother, and the mother has three kids. Hmmm, that might as well be divorce.

From the looks of it, the father is around and helping take care of the kids - in the same household. Doesn't look much like divorce to me. Of course, maybe I just don't know all of the numerous divorced couples who end up living together after divorce...

For whatever reason, they do not feel that marriage is for them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

From the looks of it, the father is around and helping take care of the kids - in the same household. Doesn't look much like divorce to me. Of course, maybe I just don't know all of the numerous divorced couples who end up living together after divorce...

For whatever reason, they do not feel that marriage is for them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

THANK you. Yes.

From the looks of it, the father is around and helping take care of the kids - in the same household. Doesn't look much like divorce to me. Of course, maybe I just don't know all of the numerous divorced couples who end up living together after divorce...

For whatever reason, they do not feel that marriage is for them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?Yeah, that was my take on it as well. Divorce generally means that the parents aren't living together anymore. At least, that's what it meant for me. I may be out of the mainstream on this, however. :D

thats america
No, that's outrageous small town puritanical bullshit.

America, no... Mississippi, maybe.
I've lived in America for 28 years, and I've never had to get an occupancy permit for any of the places I've lived. Then again, I've always lived North of the Mason-Dixon line. Maybe things are different down South?

Hey, I live in Florida, and we don't have any of that crap here either. I think that garbage is limited to the states owned by the Baptist Church, namely Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Carolina.

Oh for Pete's sake, all they have to do is get married! GET MARRIED!!!!


Please give a compelling reason why they should HAVE to get married. What is the problem with them living together and loving each other and taking care of their children without getting married? Seems that if there wasn't a stupid law about it there would be no problem.

Stupid fucking religion creating laws.

Hopw many more stupid laws like this do we need to see to show that religion should stay out of the lawbooks


I think the law was intended to be for keeping frat houses and such from taking up residences within family neighborhoods.

wtf?!?! occupancy permit?

So the United States of America is the land of the free eh?
Mostly as a result of tenament housing. 20some people to a room is a bit excessive.

Oh for Pete's sake, all they have to do is get married! GET MARRIED!!!!

Yes because the institute of marriage is doing so well in the US. What is it up to now? A 60% divorse rate?

What does marriage accomplish for these two? Nothing. In fact they probably understand that their situation changes when you say "I do" Some people are just fine without it.

The good church people in the community can go fuck themselves. Their "morality" is their own problem. Hell most of the people in any "moral" community has some shit buried somewhere.

Many of the societys problems might go away if we accepted the fact that we are all different and screwed up in our own way.

I guess everybody forgets that "Judge not..." lesson.

Wow, people really do still make retarded laws, huh?

Wow, people really do still make retarded laws, huh?

Churchill said it best:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

:)

Why bring all that legal and financial shit into it unless you really, really want to?

The legal and financial shit becomes compulsory whenever there are children involved. Custody and child support = legal and financial shit.

How many divorced or separated couples go balistic, hysterical, paranoid, defensive and threatening when there are children involved?

No, that's outrageous small town puritanical bullshit.

Yep, this is just chickenshit. Fortunantly, this kind of crap doesn't fly too well in most areas.

Ahh, good old Missouri, the state that tried to have Christianity as the offical state religion. Where the heck is Blackjack though, it says its a St. Louis community. Dang, I lived in St. Louis for most my life and I have never heard of it.

Moal communities are the best, after all, the bible belt has the highest per capital sales rates of pornography of the united states.

And that makes me smile.

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

<snip>My guess is, not long. Sounds to me like a clear violation of federal fair housing laws. All they need is the right lawyer to take the case.

Moal communities are the best, after all, the bible belt has the highest per capital sales rates of pornography of the united states.

And that makes me smile.

Missouri is "The Show Me State", after all. ;)

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Until the first local multi-millionaire realises he will no longer be allowed to live with his trusty butler, nurse and chauffeur close to hand.

Until the first local multi-millionaire realises he will no longer be allowed to live with his trusty butler, nurse and chauffeur close to hand.
Heh--people who can afford a butler, nurse and chauffeur don't get prosecuted for anything.

The only way I can see this working is if they didn't buy the house, but rather are living in council-owned property...
I'm quite sure that this is the case. Council-owned houses/flats are (around here) much cheaper than "free-market flats". People wait months in line to get to move into these low rent flats. I think it's just positive that they favour families. OK, the marriage thing is very old fashioned but it doesn't surprise me.

My parents got married because of this kind of regulation, but that was more than 30 years ago. Now young couples don't have to get married in order to rent a flat but there are several other financial reasons why they should, especially if they have children.

That home is private bloody property!

What business has the government telling someone whom he may have on his property?

This idiocy is quite possibly unconstitutional (being a de-facto seizure of their property). It needs to be bloody tested in court.

I'm quite sure that this is the case. Council-owned houses/flats are (around here) much cheaper than "free-market flats". People wait months in line to get to move into these low rent flats. I think it's just positive that they favour families. OK, the marriage thing is very old fashioned but it doesn't surprise me.

I don't think it is. The OP referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than some sort of Public Housing Department. If it is planning and zoning, it is private property, or at least it has the appearance of private property while in fact being property stolen by the city.

I don't think it is. The OP referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than some sort of Public Housing Department. If it is planning and zoning, it is private property, or at least it has the appearance of private property while in fact being property stolen by the city.
ok. Could be. If you're right I'm, once again, amazed that such idiocy can take place in any western society.

Also, one hick town is not representitive of Missouri. I can't see anything that stupid passing in Kansas City!

I know Maryville, Missouri has a law which doesn't allow more then 2-3 non-related females to share a living space, unless its a college dorm. Thats why Northwest Missouri State University has frat houses, but no sorority houses. It was a law to stop brothels from existing within the city, but they continue to allow it year after year....

But its also causing problems for four girl-friends of mine who want to buy a house. :(

All I can say is wow. I wonder how long this will stand?

Wow....I thought marriage was a choice between two people. I guess the community has a say in it. :rolleyes:



Since marriage is a public contract, community does have a say in it.
In fact, community decides exactly what marriage is.

What 2 individuals can decide is, to live according to the terms of that public contract.

Since marriage is a public contract, community does have a say in it.
In fact, community decides exactly what marriage is.

What 2 individuals can decide is, to live according to the terms of that public contract.
But the community has no say on the initiation of such a contract … the choice to get married is COMPLETELY (in this country) the decision of the individual.

These two people have signed no public contract, and are not subject to such. Yet the community sees the need to force such a contract on them.

That is wrong

But the community has no say on the initiation of such a contract … the choice to get married is COMPLETELY (in this country) the decision of the individual.

These two people have signed no public contract, and are not subject to such. Yet the community sees the need to force such a contract on them.

That is wrong

In a hurry: please check some book on public contracts in general.
There are good reasons for having public contracts, which impose uniformity of habit and custom. Difficult to have a modern society without it.

Since marriage is a public contract, community does have a say in it.
In fact, community decides exactly what marriage is.

What 2 individuals can decide is, to live according to the terms of that public contract.

Actually no it isn't. If I divorse, I owe the ex-wife. Not the community.

They have no say in the matter.

In a hurry: please check some book on public contracts in general.
There are good reasons for having public contracts, which impose uniformity of habit and custom. Difficult to have a modern society without it.

Uniformity of custom????

So everybody should have to marry as Christians?

In a hurry: please check some book on public contracts in general.
There are good reasons for having public contracts, which impose uniformity of habit and custom. Difficult to have a modern society without it.
But they were not IN a public contract.

Or a private one

Actually no it isn't. If I divorse, I own the ex-wife. Not the community.

Freudian slip?

=)

Freudian slip?

=)

Ahhh well ahhhh yea ahhh damn.....

:D

Freudian slip?

=)
Oh

Thats where you type one thing but mean your mother?

Since marriage is a public contract, community does have a say in it.
In fact, community decides exactly what marriage is.

What 2 individuals can decide is, to live according to the terms of that public contract.

Out of all the posts on this thread that I wanted to reply to after my last reply (but haven't got time to), that is the most ridiculous.

A marriage is supposed to be a special, momentous occassion, between two people who are not only so committed that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, but who also want it signed into law that they are officially married. Just as the UK starts trying to deal with forced marriages involving British muslims, certain supposedly civilised Americans decide it's a good idea to start forcing people into marriage before they are allowed to have important welfare rights (right to home, right to live as a family, right not to be chucked into some grotty children's care home, etc.).

A marriage is a PRIVATE, individual contract between two people. Hence the reason you don't have to make a public broadcast of the fact that you are married.

It is not, in civilised society, the place of communities (who may not even know the couples) to decide who should get married and who shouldn't. It's absoluetly stupid to say the opposite. Where on earth does your idea of logic come from???

Uniformity of custom????

So everybody should have to marry as Christians?


Married as according to some pre-conceived standard.
Without such standards ( no matter how much you may dislike pre-conception ), fair dispension of Justice becomes impossible.

Someone mentioned: divorce. A fine example. Unless marital contracts are kept within a narrow bandwidth, decrees Nisi ( and other matters of divorce ) become impossible to adjucate.

Since we're on about real estate: how about mortgage?
Unless you have pre-conceived standards which are kept to, neither lender nor borrower will have any effective recourse to Justice when a conflict occurs.

In summary: pre-conceived standards are necessary if you wish to have a society with some standard of Justice.

Out of all the posts on this thread that I wanted to reply to after my last reply (but haven't got time to), that is the most ridiculous.

A marriage is supposed to be a special, momentous occassion, between two people who are not only so committed that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, but who also want it signed into law that they are officially married. Just as the UK starts trying to deal with forced marriages involving British muslims, certain supposedly civilised Americans decide it's a good idea to start forcing people into marriage before they are allowed to have important welfare rights (right to home, right to live as a family, right not to be chucked into some grotty children's care home, etc.).

A marriage is a PRIVATE, individual contract between two people. Hence the reason you don't have to make a public broadcast of the fact that you are married.

It is not, in civilised society, the place of communities (who may not even know the couples) to decide who should get married and who shouldn't. It's absoluetly stupid to say the opposite. Where on earth does your idea of logic come from???

It would appear that the only ridiculous thing here is your belief that marriage is a private ceremony. Marriage is a contract. With terms. If you don't believe me, go and ask Judge Judy.

Marriage is a contract, between two private individuals.
As far as I know, we don't live in a country where a judge can sentence you to marriage.... yet.

Marriage is a contract, between two private individuals.
As far as I know, we don't live in a country where a judge can sentence you to marriage.... yet.

Fact-check coming up.

Can a judge order a marriage dissolved?
Hint: decree Nisi...

Can a judge order you to be married?

Or do they sort things out when one side or the other BREAKS THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?

Can a judge order you to be married?

Or do they sort things out when one side or the other BREAKS THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?

He or she can nudge you. And impositions can be made.

And it does NOT require a breaking of terms to establish the right of the judge to sort things out...
*keeps pointing at Decrees Nisi*

Oh, furthermore ( forgive me if, as I'm sure, US Law differs from the UK on this ) - ever since the Marriage Act of 1867 ( I think it was that year ), Marriage has been completely under the tutelage of the Courts, and not under some other authority ( such as the Church ).

Now, regarding the imposition.
What we are dealing with is a somewhat exotic application of an otherwise very simple principle of Law.
If an agreement between 2 or more Parties looks like an agreement which has a standardised expression in a Public Contract, then a competent Court has the freedom to impose said Public Contract upon that agreement between 2 or more Parties.

2 consenting adults is a drivel-doctrine when applied to Mortgage, or Renting, and it is a drivel-doctrine in matters of intimacy as well.
Test of that: if 2 consenting adults had legal status, then those 2 german cannibals were right to engage in their antrophagic relationship.
They were not, since 2 consenting adults is a drivel-doctrine.

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?

It's Missouri, what do you expect?

I can't believe that's fucking legal. :rolleyes:

This country is just... blah.

I pity you people. I hope the town get's bumraped in court, and has to change it's laws.

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?
Holy fuck I think I actualy agree with your impled viewpoint!!!11!

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?
Yet another perfect example of why the American government should not be in any way involved with marriage.

Is this even legal?

Is this even legal?
I doubt it … bet it violates all sort of fair housing acts and other laws

Actually, even if I don't agree with how extreme they're being, I think that people should be able to determine their own laws - anyway, it isn't like they're shooting them and tossing the bodies into a ditch - they can just move...

Actually, even if I don't agree with how extreme they're being, I think that people should be able to determine their own laws - anyway, it isn't like they're shooting them and tossing the bodies into a ditch - they can just move...
They already moved in to this house ... and they moved from Minnesota. You know how much that could cost for them? not to mention having to resell a house

You make it sound like no trouble at all.

I doubt it … bet it violates all sort of fair housing acts and other laws

I certainly hope so.

Actually, even if I don't agree with how extreme they're being, I think that people should be able to determine their own laws - anyway, it isn't like they're shooting them and tossing the bodies into a ditch - they can just move...

THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TO.

THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TO.
Actually, if the majority of the people say they should, then they do. (What makes me think you wouldn't be taking this tack if it was child molesters they were kicking out?)

Actually, if the majority of the people say they should, then they do. (What makes me think you wouldn't be taking this tack if it was child molesters they were kicking out?)
They shouldn’t be with child molesters either.

We SHOULD do a more effective job at tracking what they do, but not discriminating against them based on their past.

(Though that is a rather bad analogy … comparing someone that has a high potential to cause harm to a family just trying to get along)

GODWINS LAW HAS BEEN INVOKED IT'S 50 LOLLERCAUST TIME
(however in the interest of saving your bandwidth, I'll only post one)
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/96/Lollercaust.gif

Actually, if the majority of the people say they should, then they do. (What makes me think you wouldn't be taking this tack if it was child molesters they were kicking out?)

Megan's law exists for a reason. And 2 unwed parents with a child can hardly be compared to child molestors.

If you can buy something and own it, you should be able to. Period. Marital status shouldnt matter.

Megan's law exists for a reason. And 2 unwed parents with a child can hardly be compared to child molestors.

If you can buy something and own it, you should be able to. Period. Marital status shouldnt matter.
Agreed ... the only time there should be an exception is for health or saftey reasons.

Actually, if the majority of the people say they should, then they do. (What makes me think you wouldn't be taking this tack if it was child molesters they were kicking out?)

Bullshit.

Are you saying it would be okay to make my town "White-People-Free", if the majority of citizens here didn't want 'those dirty whites with their corrupted ways' clogging up our streets?

I think that it is social pressure people are putting on them which is the individuals right, just like they would be persecuted in New York for being a 'dumb red neck' except their reasons are moral not cultural. I don’t think they decided to kick um out in a city counsel meeting, its most likely people looking at them funny and not inviting them in for tea.

I think that it is social pressure people are putting on them which is the individuals right, just like they would be persecuted in New York for being a 'dumb red neck' except their reasons are moral not cultural. I don’t think they decided to kick um out in a city counsel meeting, its most likely people looking at them funny and not inviting them in for tea.
This is not just "Social pressure"

They denied them the right to live in their own house, how is this just "puiting pressure"

Only in America.... :eek:
Good old land of intollerance...

I think that it is social pressure people are putting on them which is the individuals right, just like they would be persecuted in New York for being a 'dumb red neck' except their reasons are moral not cultural. I don’t think they decided to kick um out in a city counsel meeting, its most likely people looking at them funny and not inviting them in for tea.

Read the article.

"The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased..."

Lots of weird laws in the US ...thats why we have courts and lawyers and the ACLU and HUD etc. etc....it was the law at one time to segragate the races..it was the law at one time to hold slaves and buy and sell people ..it was against the law at one time to even get a good blow job in some places...:D

Thanks to Clinton thats all changed...now its against the law not to ...:D


So what did ya expect ? In a democracy people with like minds try to live toghether and exclude " others" from their version of utopia ...its to be expected .

thank the Gods for the second ammendment .

Isn't this a repost?

Actually, if the majority of the people say they should, then they do. (What makes me think you wouldn't be taking this tack if it was child molesters they were kicking out?)
"Democracy is nothing more then mob-rule, where %51 percent of the populance, can taek away the rights of the other %49" -Thomas Jefferson. Acually, I agree with you but, one must argue both sides. I admire Thomas Jefferson, and I think what we need is a smart benevolent dictator. Democracy is becoming obsolete, as Napoleon said a man should be responsoble in order to have power over 100 men, just as one should be responsoble to have power over one man...themselves.

Isn't this a repost?
Yes, it certainly is. And there is NOTHING wrong with reposts, so long as they don't come this soon...:rolleyes:

I'd love to see this couple get married in a fashion that would simply revolt the entire town. A sort of, "hey, isn't this what you wanted?" approach.

Funny. Last I checked, the US were a democracy, not a tyranny by majority. Times change, ah' reckon...

Can't they just plant drugs on them like in the good old days?

Read the article.

"The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased..."

The heavy hand of government strikes again. What right does the government have to tell a person who can live in their house so long as the health and welfare of the individuals involved is not compromised?

Only in America.... :eek:
Good old land of intollerance...

You're right. Intolerance NEVER happens in other countries.

You're right. Intolerance NEVER happens in other countries.
Of course not!

We're all loving, except those uncaring American bastards, who eat babies that are born out of wedlock/not baptised, after forbidding their abortion, of course!

Burn Black Jack to the fucking ground. :mad:

*starts writing a new song* ;)

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?

I find the precedent of telling communities we dont live in which laws they can have and which laws they cannot have far more frightening.

If this law is stupid and unworkable it will show. Likewise if it is good for that community at this time it isnt my business. If you dont like the laws of a town dont live there or work for changes in the community. Simple really, and very democratic and fair.

Burn Black Jack to the fucking ground. :mad:

*starts writing a new song* ;)

That'll for sure help unmarried couples with kids there.

Well, those babies DO taste good....

Well, those babies DO taste good....
Boil them in holy water and they're quite scrumpscious.

I find the precedent of telling communities we dont live in which laws they can have and which laws they cannot have far more frightening.

If this law is stupid and unworkable it will show. Likewise if it is good for that community at this time it isnt my business. If you dont like the laws of a town dont live there or work for changes in the community. Simple really, and very democratic and fair.

Democracy is not the same as tyranny by majority. You have a Constitution for a reason. Tell me, though: Did you favor the invasion of Iraq based on civil rights issues? Because if you favor an intervention in a foreign country but don't favor one in your own when its constitution is being disrespected (You know, that little thing called equality under the law), then something is wrong with your thought process, I'll give you three guesses for what it is and the first two don't count.

What a piece of work is man...

That'll for sure help unmarried couples with kids there.

We had to destroy the town to save it. ;)

"A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/23/060524012000.d4hes2dk.html

Is this the kind of precedent we want to set in America?
Uh ... the "precedent" is the couple who are being faced with eviction. The law was obviously of long standing. I don't agree with it, but it's unlikely the couple will have a legal leg to stand on.

Uh ... the "precedent" is the couple who are being faced with eviction. The law was obviously of long standing. I don't agree with it, but it's unlikely the couple will have a legal leg to stand on.
I fully understand that they will probably not a leg to stand on, unless they find an activist judge to write law instead of interpret it. However, my point is, do we set "precedent" by establishing laws such a this one? Is it right to tell a couple who own a home that they cannot live in it because they are unmarried?

Interesting item, that. Doubt it will stand up in court, though. The question is will the unmarried couple be able to fight it long enough for the ACLU to get involved on their behalf. Clearly the town has no legal leg to stand on.

If it were me, I'd tell the town to shove it, and find a better place to live. You wouldn't want to live there even if you won the suit. Businesses would decide then that they can't accept your business, the police would start harassing you over small infractions of the law, and you'd probably be a social pariah to boot. Not really worth it.

It still speaks well of them that they are even considering fighting it.

Bullshit.

Are you saying it would be okay to make my town "White-People-Free", if the majority of citizens here didn't want 'those dirty whites with their corrupted ways' clogging up our streets?

Well, I guess you could - although for something like that, I would say you would need at least a two-thirds majority... anyway, I'm approaching this as a libertarian, not as a christian, in case you're wondering... people should be able to do what the hell they want to, without some court telling them what to do, that's all. (I have little against unmarried couples, although, yes, I am a christian).

wow. pure lameness...

a family consists of a group of people, 2 or more, that depend on each other, trust each other, spend time with one another, and most importantly love each other.

just because they're not legally married doesn't mean they're not family.
gawd... stupid town laws... they must have a pickle stuck up their butt or something.

wow. pure lameness...

a family consists of a group of people, 2 or more, that depend on each other, trust each other, spend time with one another, and most importantly love each other.

just because they're not legally married doesn't mean they're not family.
gawd... stupid town laws... they must have a pickle stuck up their butt or something.

Maybe they do have a pickle stuck up their butts, (icky image, that), but they still have a right to determine their own laws. That's it, end of story.

*sigh*

So much for Fair Housing laws.

In all likelyhood, it will be brought to the Courts, and a shitstorm will follow.

I think that it is social pressure people are putting on them which is the individuals right, just like they would be persecuted in New York for being a 'dumb red neck' except their reasons are moral not cultural. I don’t think they decided to kick um out in a city counsel meeting, its most likely people looking at them funny and not inviting them in for tea.


They would not be persecuted in New York for being a 'dumb red neck".

1) We have our own 'red necks' -- a good deal of NY State is agricultural in nature

2) We have all kinds in NYC.

Maybe they do have a pickle stuck up their butts, (icky image, that), but they still have a right to determine their own laws. That's it, end of story.

If the law goes against the Constitution or certain other laws, no, they do not.

Maybe they do have a pickle stuck up their butts, (icky image, that), but they still have a right to determine their own laws. That's it, end of story.

I know this is the extremist case, but did we have the right to enact slavery in the united states? Did the nazis have a right to carry out their "final solution"? Do we have a right to segregate or legal system into one standard for whites and another for blacks? Even if we did at one time, in the literal sense - is this moral and just?

I absolutely disagree with the concept that people can do whatever the heck they want to. I believe in a HUGE allowance of political and personal freedom, but I don't believe that we should defend immoral legislation simply to uphold a principal of political freedom. As Jefferson made clear 250 years ago, a simple majority (or vocal minority) should never supercede human dignity.

Maybe they do have a pickle stuck up their butts, (icky image, that), but they still have a right to determine their own laws. That's it, end of story.


No, they don't. This appears to be a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm

There is also this: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/EXO12892.cfm

I believe the ACLU will have a field day.

If the law goes against the Constitution or certain other laws, no, they do not.
The "state's rights" champions tend to forget that little technicality a lot.

Well, I guess you could - although for something like that, I would say you would need at least a two-thirds majority... anyway, I'm approaching this as a libertarian, not as a christian, in case you're wondering... people should be able to do what the hell they want to, without some court telling them what to do, that's all. (I have little against unmarried couples, although, yes, I am a christian).

I wouldn't have assumed it was a religious angle, actually... except in as much as the law seems 'prudish'... and that is often a crossover with religions.

I'm not convinced, however, that there is any Constitutional backing for this kind of action.

thats america


Actually will have to disagree. This is un American. What happened to property rights? What happened to the freedom of association? This council is breaking more than a few civil rights here I think. They should be hung from a tree! Upside down that is until there face's turn red. This is an embarrasment. Hopefully that case goes to the state supreme court.

thats america

That's Missouri.